Front & Center: Impact of a U.S. strike on Syria

(Picasa / )

September 12, 2013|Matthew Jacobs

Cross-currents of moral outrage over Syrian President Bashar Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons and war-weary Americans and allies that haven't the stomach for another Middle-Eastern quagmire have buffeted the Obama administration.

On Tuesday, President Obama said America would lean on mediation, not missiles — for now.

Editorial writer Darryl E. Owens explores Syrian implications in an edited email interview with University of Florida professor Matthew Jacobs, author of "Imagining the Middle East: The Building of An American Foreign Policy, 1918-1967."

Q: Did Obama present an effective case against Syria in his Tuesday speech?

A: He did fine presenting the moral case for responding to the use of chemical weapons in Syria. The problem, however, is that he also acknowledged that more than 100,000 people have already died in the conflict. That means that we are left to decide whether or not we find one means of killing people more reprehensible than other means of doing so.

He also got caught up in a second contradiction. He argued that not responding to the use of chemical weapons would exacerbate a longer-term national security threat to the United States and other countries by emboldening those who would use chemical weapons. At the same time, however, he stated that he had delayed asking Congress to vote on a measure authorizing the use of force in order to allow recent diplomatic initiatives to play out because there was no "imminent" national security threat. That approach feeds the skepticism of an already unsupportive American public.

Q: Is a U.S. military attack likely to tip the balance in the Syrian civil war?

A: President Obama stated that his objective is to "degrade and deter' Assad's ability and willingness to carry out chemical-weapons attacks, and that any U.S. strikes would be "targeted and limited" so as to avoid either intervening in a way that would alter the military dynamics of the civil war or lead to broader U.S. initiatives such as the deployment of troops.

It is very difficult to use air power and cruise missiles alone to go after the chemical weapons themselves without inadvertently dispersing them, which means that the target list becomes the standard command and control centers, military infrastructure, and military forces. By definition, that is going to alter the dynamics of the broader conflict.

Q: What consequences would the U.S. face if the Assad regime falls?

A: The most likely scenario would be an ongoing conflict that would potentially further destabilize an already unstable region. If the moderate rebels were to emerge victorious and able to hold power against the Islamists, that would fundamentally alter the dynamics of the region, as it would possibly remove Iran's closest ally in the region while also removing Hezbollah's patron. On the surface, that might all seem positive, but realize that it would also create a whole host of new challenges.

Q: Can America avoid entanglement in the war beyond a limited attack?

A: This is very likely, at least in terms of the U.S. not continuously attacking Syria itself. The problem comes when we consider the possibility of any retaliatory attacks on U.S. interests elsewhere — a contingency for which we need to account. Also, If the current proposal to have Syria submit its chemical weapons to international control moves forward, the United States will be an active player in that process.

Q: And if Syria sumbits its chemical-weapons stores to international control ... ?

A: The winners: 1) Obama, as it would allow him to get out of the "red line" corner he painted himself into without losing face; 2) the Russians, as it would demonstrate their return to international significance, which has been one of Putin's major goals over the last decade, while also allowing them to protect an ally; 3) the Assad regime, insofar as it would be able to escape any punishment or degrading of its military capabilities; and 4) the international community, for whom it is always a good thing to gain greater control over any chemical weapons.